Popular tools are Flux and ArgoCD
When deciding between Argo CD and Flux, consider the following key factors:
| Criteria | ArgoCD | Flux |
| Synchronization | Global sync interval. Can optionally just diff. Supports flexible Sync Windows. | Per app sync interval. Always discards cluster changes. No support for Sync windows |
| Architecture | Standalone application with built-in UI | Modular set of controllers within Kubernetes |
| Application Management | Supports ApplicationSets for managing multiple apps | Utilizes Helm and Kustomize, requires extra tooling |
| Web UI | Comprehensive and user-friendly | Primarily CLI-based; limited visualization via Weave GitOps |
| RBAC | Custom RBAC system with granular controls | Relies on Kubernetes-native RBAC |
| Installation | Flexible, YAML-based configuration | Streamlined with automated bootstrapping |
| Corporate support and community | Strong community and corporate backing | Uncertain future post-Weaveworks shutdown |
Here are a few key considerations when making the choice between Argo CD and Flux:
- User interface: Teams preferring a visual interface should lean towards Argo CD for its robust web UI.
- Scalability and complexity: For managing complex deployments, Argo CD’s ApplicationSets provide a streamlined approach, whereas Flux requires additional scripting.
- Security requirements: If granular control over permissions is critical, Argo CD’s custom RBAC offers more flexibility.
- Ease of setup: Beginners might find Flux easier to start with due to its automated bootstrapping.
- Future stability: Consider the potential impact of Weaveworks’ shutdown on Flux’s future updates and community support.